It’s my pleasure to follow two of our industry’s most enthusiastic congressional champions and, of course, Bob McGehee. They have set a wonderful tone for our meeting over the next two days.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge Joe Colvin. I’m honored to have succeeded him as NEI’s president and CEO and to carry on the important work he started on behalf of our industry. Thanks for your leadership, Joe.

As Bob McGhee described so well, our industry has achieved an outstanding record of safe, efficient nuclear plant operations. And that success has helped bring about unprecedented opportunities.

Now it’s time to move forward.

How do we continue making headway for tomorrow, while sustaining the record performance for today?

How do we sustain the momentum generated by the performance record of today’s plants?

To that end, I would like to discuss our key areas of focus for the coming year.

Individually and collectively, we debate, review and refine. We do that well.

But now we have set our course, and we’re moving forward with one clear voice.

One vision.

One industry, unified to develop the future energy security of our nation and with it, advance its physical security as well.

A few weeks ago, President Bush noted that our problem with energy didn’t happen overnight. And he asked a provocative question:

“Do we want to continue to grow more dependent on other nations to meet our energy needs, or do we want what is necessary to achieve greater control of our economic destiny?”

This is a view shared by congressional leaders, such as Chairmen Inhofe and Barton. And it is also the view of a growing number of policy and environmental organizations – some of whom used to vehemently oppose nuclear energy.

And here’s the rub I suggested earlier. But we’re not there...yet! There remain some tough challenges before new nuclear plants orders become a reality. But what better environment in which to address these challenges?

The Year’s Challenges: Yucca Mountain
Our challenges begin with putting Yucca Mountain on the path to success.

In the context of the project’s 20-year history, we’ve made real progress. But we must not forget that this is one of the most complex public works projects in the world!

If you think back 20 years, many said we’d never hone in on a site for evaluation.

We did.

Think back 10 years ago. Many said DOE could never find the Yucca Mountain site suitable.

After careful analysis by some 3,000 – not 3 – dedicated engineers and scientists from 12 universities and 2 national laboratories, DOE did.

Think back three years ago. Many said the federal government would never approve Yucca Mountain.

The president approved the site.

And a bipartisan Congress reaffirmed his decision.

Nonetheless, we continue to face a spectrum of challenges at Yucca Mountain -– from resolving the Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation protection standard to addressing the projects quality assurance issues and countering the strong political and legal team representing the state of Nevada.

Through them all, we must make it clear that no one wants this project designed and built correctly, to the highest standards, and operated safely more than the nuclear industry.

Though the Yucca Mountain project is delayed, the Energy Department is committed to deep geologic disposal and is working to submit a license application at the earliest possible date.

The Yucca Mountain repository is an industry priority. But it is clear that this project requires some adjustment in our approach to ensure that federal government stewardship of commercial reactor fuel becomes a reality in the near term.

We need to better explain the plan for Yucca Mountain.

We need to do a better job of explaining DOE’s repository program to the country. DOE has never intended to “dump” used fuel into the mountain, close the door and walk away.

Today, the DOE plan of record for Yucca Mountain — encompassing a period of perhaps hundreds of years to allow for in-situ fuel monitoring and retrievability — renders moot the clamor over tens to hundreds of thousands of years of modeling.

Scientists and engineers will remain on the scene to actually measure and correct as necessary the modeled predictions.

These concepts already are well-defined in law and in the regulations.

And we should discuss this option with all stakeholders.

Thoughtful discussion of the actual repository concept can help boost public confidence in the safety of the project.

Today we have with us two leaders from Nevada who also are advancing these concepts – and beyond – to ensure the health and safety of the citizens they represent: Candice Trummell, chairperson of the Nye County Commission—host county to Yucca Mountain, and Kevin Phillips, mayor of Caliente, Nevada, a key location of the proposed rail route to Yucca Mountain.

We will be working closely with these leaders and the For a Better Nevada Coalition … with the administration … and with bipartisan supporters in Congress to incorporate new approaches into an integrated used nuclear fuel management program that will meet DOE’s obligation to take fuel from reactor sites sooner rather than later.

They are discussing continuing the monitoring and retrievable period for an even longer than the DOE plan of record. The bankrupt idea of leaving fuel at our 65 sites with or without DOE title simply won’t work.

We must ensure a dedicated, available funding program for the Yucca Mountain repository and other components of the integrated federal program.

The Congressional intent for establishing the fund was to use it to support the Yucca Mountain project. That’s what consumers deserve. It’s what we should do.

As Chairman Barton noted, it has been 23 years since Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and nearly two decades since the amendments to that law were passed. We need to tell the truth about the real plans and embrace enhanced repository concepts that will recognize innovation and technology and add greater safety and flexibility to the program.

Leaders in Congress are investigating options, such as used nuclear fuel treatment and conditioning … reprocessing … and other advanced technologies.

Bottom line: Yucca Mountain is not dead. We can and must do better all we can to improve the concept.

The Year’s Challenges: Regulatory Stability
At the risk of repeating some of what Bob McGhee said, I’ll now turn to another issue posing near-term challenges: We need greater certainty both in regulatory processes for today’s plants, and in licensing processes applied to new nuclear facilities, whether they be new reactors or fuel facilities.

Lets’ reflect on how far we’ve come.

A little more than five years ago, the NRC first implemented its new reactor oversight process. Back then, few believed that safety-focused regulatory concepts would work.

Today, not only do these concepts work, but our plants are safer and more efficient than ever.

It’s time to put these concepts into law. As I’ve argued before, it’s time to regulate with regulations, not through personality-dependent concepts.

During the past two years, NRC Chairman Diaz has spoken out about a landmark concept for the future regulatory structure of our industry.

He said that “21st Century nuclear regulation needs to be anchored in realistic conservatism or conservative realism if we are to avoid the twin pitfalls of under-regulation and over-regulation.”

That’s conservative defense in depth informed by science, engineering, and nearly 10,000 reactor years of experience worldwide.

But achieving a fair, predictable regulatory environment requires the same predictability and realism in plant security and emergency preparedness.

Since 9/11, we’ve spent more than $1.2 billion to secure our facilities to a standard unmatched by any other industry.

We’ve implemented the NRC Interim Measure, Orders and recommendations. We, as an industry, are currently conducting spent fuel pool vulnerability studies as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and will be working with NAS to ensure we are addressing their concerns.

We are also working in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security to conduct additional site studies that go well beyond the threat that formed the basis for our plant Design Basis Threat. Our country’s defense must work to prevent these events that exceed the Design Basis Threat.

What now? We need a strategic pause inside our fences.

I am not advocating a static environment. But that belongs to the Department of Homeland Security.

For now, we must take time to ensure we fully integrate our new security procedures into plant operations. We must ensure they aren’t interfering with our commitment to safety—our highest priority.

The Year’s Challenges: The Energy Bill and New Plants
Finally, we need energy policy legislation that will provide important provisions for our current plants and help set the stage for new plants.

The House has passed its version of an energy bill with strong nuclear provisions, and the Senate is poised to address legislation beginning with today’s markup in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

We need an energy policy that promotes diversity of energy sources—including emission-free sources like nuclear energy and a broad mix of alternatives, like clean coal and renewable energy.

I am a firm believer that energy security equals national security and energy security for this country requires nuclear in the mix.

New nuclear plant construction also has strong support from Energy Secretary Bodman … and congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle … and most importantly from the heartland of America.
 
The window of opportunity on national energy policy is now.

The course of legislative action we recommend in new plant development is quite comprehensive.

Across the industry, we don’t all need nor even want the same things given company and market structure.

But we’re all working to ensure that legislation has the right mix of cost-sharing for first-of-a- kind engineering and licensing, investment incentives and risk insurance protection to achieve that thing we do all want: new nuclear plant construction.

The president has recently recognized the need for federal risk protection against any improbable, but crippling, licensing delays that companies pursuing new nuclear plants may experience.

Coupled with investment incentives, that’s a tremendously important step.

It will take time to complete the first early site permit applications, complete the first combined construction and operating license applications and certify new reactor designs.

We must accelerate these processes, and the Congress can help by increasing funding for Nuclear Power 2010, which incorporates this cost sharing.

Our message is clear: We need limited federal investment, for a limited number of new plants for a limited time period.

We must sustain communications with our congressional delegations, local leaders and the financial community about nuclear energy’s role and the need for fair, equitable incentives for our industry—in line with incentives provided to other energy resources.

The Year’s Challenges: New Plant Orders
The timing is indeed right for action. To continue establishing the conditions, the business environment, for new nuclear.

We are not there...yet!

But look at what our industry is doing … testing the new licensing process.

Wall Street has made it clear what is needed to gain the confidence to finance a new plant project.

We’re helping each other demonstrate that the new regulatory processes for next generation reactors can work.

That also sends a message to our decision-makers: As I said earlier, we have a vital role to play in enhancing America’s energy security and reducing dependence on unstable nations for energy supply.
 
That sends a message to the 70 percent of the American public who favor nuclear energy – a record high for the industry. It says we are serious about meeting the public’s demand for energy in a manner that also protects our environment and the air we breathe.

Again, who would have believed that the co-founder of Greenpeace would tell Congress that—quote—nuclear energy...combined with the use of renewable energy sources...remains the only practical, safe and environmentally sensitive means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing energy security?

But Patrick Moore did just that three weeks ago.

He and other environmentalists see nuclear energy’s link to an environmentally sound, sustainable future.

Nuclear energy can meet new electricity demand in a way that improves our environment and enhances our ability to meet clean air regulations.

Today’s 103 nuclear plants -— and tomorrow’s new reactors -— can provide the reliability and cost stability that our nation’s electricity systems need.

Moving Forward Together
And by the way, this new momentum is a global happening.

Powerful forces are at work today—forces interacting to put the commercial nuclear energy business on the global agenda.

Just two months ago, seventy-four nations convened in Paris and issued a joint proclamation praising nuclear energy as “a proven technology” that can “make a major contribution to meeting energy needs and sustaining the world’s development in the 21st century.”

For years, our industry has worked quietly behind the scenes. Now it’s time to speak out —- and do so collectively and aggressively.

Let’s pull the defense off the field and put in the offense.

We need to encourage yet greater support for nuclear energy and lead the way...with Republicans, Democrats and Independents…and with decision-makers, students and your local Rotarians and Chamber members.

Young professionals in our industry are advancing this strategy in a bold, new way.

One group of professionals that is extremely active is the North American Young Generation in Nuclear. These young professionals have been meeting here this week in conjunction with this meeting. Listen to their message later today.

We must move more aggressively to let people know that nuclear is “clean air energy.” We must solidify the environmental benefits of nuclear energy in the minds of the public.

But we’re only effective in the public arena, on Capitol Hill and with the Executive Branch when we’re in synch.

We need to answer the question of ordering new plants more fully than we have -– the media needs to understand the enormous momentum in the right direction, but we’re not quite there...yet!

We need everyone in this room to be involved!

Conclusion: One Industry, One Common Agenda
So how do we make it happen?

We’re going to need the full participation of the entire industry to achieve our policy goal.

Acting together, our industry can set the stage today for our prospects for decades to come.

The problems of the past are simply problems of the past. We are in a new day. We need aggressive leadership. And we need to know how to execute the playbook.

No doubt, there are those challenges in our path. No one can be ready today to sign contracts for new plants.

No one can – not yet – but we’re getting there.

We have to finish the job at Yucca Mountain. We have to codify safety-focused regulatory concepts. We must protect shareholders’ investment against regulatory risk that we can’t control. We have to pass comprehensive energy legislation that includes operating incentives. We have to establish the right conditions for new plant orders.

Then the orders will begin.

These are near-term challenges, but the long-term implications are enormous. In the end, what we’re asking for is commitment.

Let’s get behind that common agenda.

This is our time of opportunity. It is our time for action.

Let’s act. Let’s act together. Let’s act now.

Thank you.